Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The leading 'WRITE:' marker plus the resulting state disclosure tell the agent this is a mutating operation whose effect is to return the order to an unassigned queue. It does not say what happens if the order has no driver assigned or what errors are returned, but the core behavioral effect is covered beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the write nature and effect front-loaded and the endpoint appended as reference detail. Nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers the essential action, target, and end state. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (order already unassigned, invalid id) but nothing blocks correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that order_id is the internal numeric orderId rather than the order number. The description only echoes it via the PUT path template, adding no new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('remove the driver from a delivery order') and immediately clarifies the resulting state ('goes back to unassigned'). It is clearly distinguishable from the reverse operation shipday_assign_order_to_carrier among the siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the outcome ('goes back to unassigned'), so an agent can infer it is for detaching a driver, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative (e.g., reassigning via an assign tool instead).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.